Hi Martin, On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:53:20 +0200 Martin Jambor wrote:
> Dear Giacomo, > > On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:50:52 +0200 Martin Jambor wrote: > > > >> Unfortunately, all people are also able to close their eyes and > >> ears and ignore mistreatment when they are not the victims and > >> when their friend or their favorite public figure is the > >> perpetrator. > > > > Martin, what you imply here, is an insult I do not deserve. > > I am sorry. No problem, apology accepted! ;-) > I wanted to underline that the questions discussed here > are not cultural or somehow defined geographically. But it IS cultural (and thus storical and geographical): we interpret any datum according to our existing knowledge and perspectives. It's happening even now: I write these words trying to express what I think in my mind and in the very instant you are reading them, you interpret them according to your current positions and beliefs. > > But in Italy we have a legal principle called "Presumption of > > innocence". > > Nevertheless, I am convinced that all the many accusations are clear, > consistent and most of them are beyond any doubt (a lot of it is on > RMS's own blog). If you consider software as a form of human expression and Free Software as an obvious extension of Free Speech (that is a complex human right, probably the most complex as it has to be balanced BY LAW with all the others, privacy and personal safety above all), I think you can see how controversial positions on a personal blogs cannot constitute a valid argument against RMS. If you marginalize people with controversial (but legal) positions you select people that only do vague statements that everybody can interpret as they like. Ultimately, you select people whose real opinions you do not really know and that only pretend to defend "Free Software as in Free Speech" because they do not practice Free Speech at all. > They easily clear the bar for legitimate reasons why > he should not be an official representative of GCC. > > I do not understand people which keep doubting the "evidence" or > describe it as hearsay, the only explanation I can think of is that > they simply do not wish to not accept the facts. If you are certain > that this is not your case (no "proof" or explanation necessary) then > please accept my apologies. Again, apologies accepted. :-) Giacomo
